[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10521-H10528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Filner moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6 be instructed to 
     reject section 12403 of the House bill, relating to the 
     definition of oil and gas exploration and production in the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7, rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise today to speak on this motion to instruct the conferees on the 
energy bill.
  Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Republican Party is called the GOP. Well, 
I often wondered what that meant. It is clear from this energy bill 
that it means gas, oil and petroleum. And my motion would instruct the 
conferees to strike a section of H.R. 6 which represents a shameless 
payback to the oil and gas companies of this Nation.
  This section, if my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, grants 
oil and gas companies a free pass from complying with the Clean Water 
Act, a free pass from complying with one of the major environmental 
laws that was passed in the 1970s. Under this section, oil and gas 
development and production sites, oil and gas development and 
production sites and construction sites do not have to worry about what 
their activities are doing to our water supply. No other industry in 
America gets this exemption; only the oil and gas development and 
production industry. And, they are under no obligation to control storm 
water runoff that would sully our beautiful lakes, rivers, and streams, 
and they suffer no consequences.
  It must be nice for the oil and gas companies to have friends like 
that in Congress and in the White House, especially when these friends 
are members of the majority party, the GOP, gas, oil and petroleum, 
who, rather than dealing with the messy process we so often revere here 
and hold up as a model of democracy in the world, simply block out all 
those who would disagree with them. Heaven forbid anybody would bring 
up objections about the health of our water, not to mention the health 
of our people. The majority party, gas, oil and petroleum, has blocked 
out any dissenters right from the beginning on this bill.
  One of my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
tried to introduce an amendment to strike this section, but he was 
ruled out of order and, get this, because the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce said it was not under their jurisdiction, but it was under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but 
that Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure never considered 
the bill. Talk about a Catch-22. And attempts to remove it on the floor 
of this House were thwarted by the Committee on Rules.
  It is widely acknowledged that the majority did not allow the 
minority to participate, even in the conference committee, where the 
Senate and House meet to deal with their differences. So there was 
never a chance for honest debate of this section. This is what we call 
as a model for the world, a democracy.
  So what do we have now, Mr. Speaker? A situation where oil and gas 
companies will be able to pollute our waters so that our children and 
grandchildren will not be able to use them. Our waters will be spoiled, 
our health will be threatened, but that is okay. We do not need clean 
water anyway, as long as we have our oil. And any suggestions that we 
invest more in renewable energies or in cleaner energies all were 
thrown out, and the handouts to the oil companies just keep getting 
bigger and bigger.
  Right now, I encourage my colleagues to stop this insult to the 
environment and to the democratic process. We ought to vote ``yes'' on 
this motion to instruct and not to let the oil and gas companies 
pollute our waterways, and we should let the Nation know that we care 
about clean water.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct filed by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) seeks to remove section 12403 of H.R. 6, the 
pending energy bill in conference with our counterparts in the other 
body, the provision that passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
and the House as a whole. The motion to instruct would seek to have the 
House conferees reject the provision that the House has already adopted 
when we passed H.R. 6 on April 11 by a vote of 247 for the bill to 175 
against the bill. That is approximately a 60 percent vote in support of 
the overall package.
  Section 12403 in the context of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, which we commonly refer to as the Clean Water Act, defines oil and 
gas exploration and production to mean ``all field operations necessary 
for both exploration and production of oil and gas, including 
activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the 
movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such 
activities may be considered construction activities.''

                              {time}  1745

  Why do we need to have a definition in this energy bill? Section 
402(1)(2) of the Clean Water Act specifically prohibits the 
administrator of the EPA from requiring a Federal stormwater discharge 
permit for discharges of stormwater runoff from, again, I quote 
directly from the act, ``oil and gas exploration, production, 
processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities composed 
entirely of flows which are from conveyances or systems of conveyances, 
including, but not limited to, pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels, 
used for collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and which are 
not contaminated.'' This has been the law since 1987.
  In plain language what it means is the EPA has no regulatory 
authority over waste water in the construction or the operation of a 
drilling rig in the United States. This has been the law since 1987. 
The statutory language seems clear that any matter of stormwater 
collection, whether it is a ditch, a culvert under a road, a diversion 
channel around an oil and gas well location, does not have to be 
permitted by the EPA. We could not be more clear. But the EPA has 
sought to regulate the building of the oil and gas location sites by 
insisting on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, 
permits, commonly referred to as stormwater discharge permits for the 
construction of the site.
  So even the EPA will admit that once it is built and in operation, 
they have no jurisdiction. So they are trying to do a back-door, an 
end-around and say you have to get a permit to construct the site. That 
simply is not the intent of the Congress. It was not the intent of the 
Congress 10, 15 years ago; and it is not the intent of this Congress. 
It is a direct contravention of the intent of Congress.
  The requirement for a stormwater discharge permit is in direct 
opposition to Congress that the EPA attempts to separate the movement 
and placement of drilling equipment from oil and gas exploration and 
production operations. Applying common sense, which sometimes is in 
short supply, I understand, but if you apply common sense to the plain 
meaning of the statute, you would show that activities necessary to 
prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of 
drilling equipment are part and parcel of the operation. You cannot 
have one without the other. Therefore, a statutory exclusion for one 
totally encompasses the other as well.
  The existing statute specifically precludes the requirement for 
stormwater

[[Page H10522]]

discharge permit if the runoff is not contaminated by coming into 
contact with, again I quote from the act, ``any overburden, raw 
material, intermediate products, finished product, by-product, or waste 
products located on the site of such operations.'' Yet the EPA seems 
willing to entertain those and argue that dirt, D-I-R-T, is a 
contaminant. The term ``overburden'' is used in association with mining 
operations, not oil and gas operations, and is defined in the code of 
the Federal regulations to exclude topsoil. The terms ``intermediate 
products, finished product, by-product, or waste products'' eliminate 
consideration of dirt from their definitions because their definition 
encompasses the results of a process. Dirt is not something that EPA 
regulates.
  ``Raw material'' is commonly defined as a crude or processed material 
that can be converted by manufacture, processing, or combination to a 
new and useful product. Raw material is not dirt. Therefore, pursuant 
to the express language in the statute, the building of an oil and gas 
well location which involves the movement of topsoil, or as we would 
say in Texas, dirt, is not subject to the requirements of stormwater 
discharge permit. We are talking about rain on dirt. This is not a man-
made pollutant.
  But even though the Clean Water Act is abundantly clear on this 
issue, EPA has chosen to ignore its express language, consequently the 
need for this definitional provision. Does this definitional provision 
affect the existing Clean Water Act? No. The provision merely defines 
oil and gas exploration and production. It does not change the 
substantive application of the Clean Water Act but merely provides a 
definition to provide clarity that should be readily apparent to any 
normally intelligent human being upon reading the statute.
  The Clean Water Act requires a permit for contaminated runoff. This 
provision does not change that requirement. This provision does not 
allow contaminated stormwater runoff. In keeping with the existing law, 
which was enacted as a part of the Water Quality Control Act of 1987, 
this provision preserves the congressional intent to preclude the 
necessity of a permit for stormwater runoff that is not contaminated.
  Congress never intended for EPA to require a permit for the runoff of 
uncontaminated water or rain over dirt. Vote against the motion to 
instruct. Let common sense prevail and preserve the House position.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself 2 minutes to respond to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who continues to throw dirt into 
this discussion.
  It is true that the section of the Clean Water Act that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) referred to provides that permits are not 
required where stormwater runoff is diverted around mining operations 
or oil and gas operations and does not come into contact with 
overburdened raw material product or processed wastes. This was in 
recognition of the fact that there are several situations in mining and 
oil and gas industries where stormwater is already channeled around 
plants and operations in a series of ditches in order to prevent such 
pollution of the stormwater. But this section does not include any 
stormwater runoff that has been contaminated by contact with 
overburdened raw material where ends meet products, et cetera. The 
soils that are disturbed in drilling wells are both overburdened and 
waste products.
  There is no evidence anywhere, even in the industry comments, that 
suggest that stormwater is routed around these drilling and 
construction sites as it is in the operation sites. In fact, what I 
wanted to bring in the argument is there is no evidence, even from the 
oil and gas industries, even from the GOP, that the stormwater flowing 
through the construction sites are free of sediments or other 
pollutants. That is what makes them contaminated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) for offering this motion to instruct the energy 
bill conferees.
  Rather than working on an energy bill that will work to solve our 
Nation's energy crisis, it appears that the Republicans are using this 
bill to wage a tax on our national resources, on our air, on our water.
  The provision that was passed in the House without committee action 
would permanently exempt the oil and gas industry from the Clean Water 
Act's requirement to control stormwater runoff from construction 
activities at their exploration or production sites. Contaminated 
runoff would certainly impair the health of our Nation's streams, our 
lakes, our rivers, the waters, Mr. Speaker, where anglers fish, 
children swim. And we must not forget where our drinking water comes 
from.
  Why are we rolling back the good progress that the Clean Water Act 
has made? Why are we doing this without a single hearing in the 
committee of jurisdiction and without the benefit of the EPA's years of 
work? It is time for the GOP gas/oil/petroleum group and their 
leadership to stop putting the interests of big oil and gas companies 
ahead, ahead of what is best for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the gentleman's 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Houston, Texas, (Mr. Green) a member of the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, under current law, oil and natural 
gas exploration and production activities do not have to do the 
extensive stormwater permitting that is required for large residential 
or commercial developments.
  The provision in question in the energy bill clarifies what is 
current law. Oil and gas drill site activity is not the same as 
residential and commercial building construction and should not have to 
do the same permits.
  It is unnecessary, and the loss to our domestic oil and natural gas 
supplies would be severe. This motion to instruct is trying to put a 
square peg in a round hole.
  All the provision in the energy bill does is clarify that the 
definition of oil and natural gas exploration and production includes 
the preparation work for that exploration and production.
  The provision in the energy bill does not roll back the Clean Water 
Act in any way. If a producer discharges reportable quantities of any 
hazardous substances in stormwater, they have to do stormwater 
permitting. If a producer's site discharges stormwater that contributes 
to a water quality violation, they have to do stormwater permitting. If 
there is a production site that I find out in my district that is 
actually polluting, then I will have them investigate it. That is under 
current law. And they should be.
  The result of this policy, if we adopt this motion to instruct, is 
that we would have less domestic energy and higher natural gas prices. 
And with natural gas prices as high as they already are, the effects of 
this motion would now be very serious on the manufacturing jobs, not 
only in my own district that depend on affordable natural gas, but all 
over the country, whether it is in California or whether you are on the 
east coast.
  We do not have a choice on where to get our natural gas. If it is by 
nature, it is by nature. We need to produce it where it is, and 
hopefully it will be more domestically. The opportunities for imports 
of natural gas from Mexico and Canada and overseas are limited. So we 
are going to have to depend on our own resources even more. It is going 
to be hard to do that. If we are going to have to depend on our own 
resources, it is going to be hard to do that with a bad regulatory 
policy.
  The EPA, if they know that there is pollution already in an oil and 
gas site, they can go out. In California, that seems like where a lot 
of these motions to instruct come from; they can go out and 
investigate. If there is pollution, they can be cited. But do not make 
them go ahead and hinder what industrial production we are trying to do 
right now. That is all this does is restate what is current law, Mr. 
Speaker. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against the Filner 
motion to instruct conferees.

[[Page H10523]]

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) continued to muddy 
the waters not only of this debate but of this Nation.
  Let me quote from EPA's most recent national water quality inventory 
2000 report which says siltation, siltation is one of the leading 
pollution problems in the Nation's rivers and streams. Siltation alters 
aquatic habitat, suffocates fish eggs and bottom dwelling organisms, 
and can interfere with drinking water treatment processes and 
recreational use of a river. Dirt, dirt, dirt. We are talking about 
pollution of our Nation's streams.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to 
instruct conferees on the Energy Policy Act. This motion is about a 
subject about which the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my 
colleagues, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I 
sent around in a Dear Colleague letter recently as part of my efforts 
on the energy subcommittee to alert Members of this body about the raft 
of terrible provisions in the energy bill conference report.
  This particular provision undermines the Clean Water Act by giving 
oil and gas companies a permanent exemption from pollution control 
requirements at drilling sites. The Clean Water Act requires developers 
to obtain a stormwater permit from EPA to ensure that their 
construction practices do not lead to harmful runoff. In fact, if you 
go right outside the Capitol, especially on a rainy day like today, you 
will notice some of the measures these permits require for the visitors 
center construction site right here.
  In this case, it is simple things like rocks and mesh over storm 
drains that keep out stormwater that could be polluted by construction 
activities.

                              {time}  1800

  Currently, the oil and gas industry enjoys a temporary moratorium on 
complying with these storm water permitting provisions. This moratorium 
is for construction sites of less than five acres. EPA is continuing to 
study the issue further, and the agency is expected to issue a final 
rule March 25.
  Yes, the drafters of the energy bill cannot wait for EPA to determine 
an appropriate course of action. Instead, the energy bill shortcuts the 
process and gives the industry a permanent exemption for all 
construction activities for oil and gas exploration regardless of size. 
As a result of this exemption, oil and gas exploration would be the 
only construction activity not subject to Clean Water Act requirements. 
Oil and gas operations would be under no obligation to control 
pollution that would pollute our Nation's lakes, rivers and streams. 
This is an end-run around one of our Nation's most successful 
environmental laws. And, of course, no hearings have been held on this 
issue in the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  This amendment to the Clean Water Act is bad for public health, bad 
for environment, and certainly does not belong in the energy bill.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to note 
how deeply disappointed I am in the conduct of the energy conference to 
date. To date there has been one official meeting of the conference, 
despite assurances by the leadership that it would be an open 
conference with full debate on the key issues. Instead, the bill is 
basically being drafted in secret with only occasional press reports 
about what is exactly in the bill. And from what we can tell, the bill 
will make major policy changes on a raft of issues. It will spend 
billions and billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies to some of the 
richest industries on this planet; and all of this is being done 
basically in the dead of night.
  It is very much like the way the appropriations process has been run 
and most of the rest of the major issues as well. This kind of closed, 
secretive process does not produce good policy. Quite frankly, it is 
scandalous. It is undemocratic.
  For that and other reasons, I certainly do appreciate the gentleman 
from California's (Mr. Filner) efforts on this motion. I urge all 
Members to support it and oppose any energy bill that contains such a 
shameful provision.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 20 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) has 17 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Filner motion 
to instruct conferees on H.R. 6, the energy bill.
  If you ask any one of a thousand people employed by the oil and gas 
industry in my district, the question, How do you physically get oil 
and gas? They will all answer the same way. The first step is 
exploration and production to prepare a site for drilling. Like a 
surgeon sanitizing a patient before an operation, an exploration site 
must be prepared before drilling can begin. Cleaning, grading and 
excavating have always been an inherent part of oil and gas activities.
  Congress has exempted oil and gas deficits from the storm water 
permit process and there is good reason to do so. Oil and gas 
exploration occurs in predominantly rural areas and remote locations. 
Oil and gas site preparation uses temporary, nonimpervious, low-impact 
techniques. These techniques have inherently lower environmental 
impacts compared to conventional commercial and residential 
construction in urban settings.
  If these activities are nonexempt, oil and gas leases will be lost to 
time delay. If oil and gas leases are lost, development of on-shore 
domestic and oil gas reserves will be lost.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell that you we depend far too much on 
foreign oil. We import more than half of our oil from foreign sources, 
a number that is expected to grow to 66 percent by the year 2010 if we 
do not act now.
  I urge my colleagues to support domestic production and vote no on 
the Filner motion to instruct.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  (Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Filner motion to instruct.
  The issue of proper regulation of oil and gas companies with regard 
to clean water is a very real and serious concern for the people of 
Southern Arizona that I represent.
  On July 30 of this year, as an example, an 8-inch high pressure 
gasoline pipeline operated by Kinder Morgan, Incorporated on the west 
side of Tucson, Arizona, ruptured. Ten thousand gallons of gasoline 
were sprayed 50 feet in the air dousing five homes under construction, 
which later had to be demolished. Hazardous fumes were created 250 
yards away from occupied homes.
  In the aftermath, there were reports of ground water contamination 
resulting from the rupture and possibly from the reconstruction 
efforts. Initial reports varied, some indicating serious contamination. 
More recent reports seem to show contamination may have been ongoing 
for some time and only came to light due to the investigation of the 
rupture.
  Safety inspection reports dating back to 1995, and as far back as 
1988, indicated potential problems for a rupture, but yet this 
information was never made available to the public or to their elected 
officials.
  To address this problem, I have asked the EPA to conduct an 
independent assessment of the degree of contamination and the risks for 
residents. If the Filner motion is not passed, this type of oversight 
and enforcement would be seriously compromised. The people in my 
district have a terrible wealth of experience with ground water 
contamination. A plume of TCE created the most serious of many 
Superfund sites in my district. This pollution has created a legacy of 
illness and death across the south and west sides of Tucson. I am told 
it continues to grow every day.
  The gas and oil industries facilities covered by this exemption tend 
to be

[[Page H10524]]

located in lower-income, minority and poor neighborhoods. Companies, of 
course, seek to limit their legal liabilities by placing these 
facilities near populations without the money to litigate or the strong 
political representation. Then the companies come back to us and ask 
for more legal protection, as they have in this amendment, and for our 
complicity in this injustice.
  The bill before us would expand an exemption that should never have 
been passed in the first place. It is absurd that we would be debating 
whether to increase pollution by giving legal immunity to corporate 
polluters. How can a Member of Congress seriously argue that we should 
allow more pollution in our ground water, rivers and streams?
  The issue is clear: Do we want to maintain our standards of clean 
water or do we want to expand existing loopholes that allow even 
greater environmental injustices to occur with our complicity?
  I urge my colleagues to protect human health, protect our children, 
and our precious and increasingly fragile natural legacy by voting yes 
on the Filner motion to instruct.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 2003.
     Hon. Marianne Horinko,
     Acting Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
         Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
     Wayne Nastri,
     Regional Administrator, Hawthorne Street, U.S. Environmental 
         Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Ms. Horinko and Mr. Nastri: I am writing regarding the 
     recent gasoline pipeline rupture in Tucson, Arizona. This 
     disaster is of extremely grave concern to me and to the 
     constituents I represent in Arizona.
       On July 30, the pipeline, owned and operated by Kinder 
     Morgan, Inc., ruptured, spraying 10,000 gallons of gasoline 
     onto homes in Tucson. This event subjected my constituents to 
     serious environmental, health and safety risks. Thankfully, 
     no one was injured in the rupture. Now that the immediate 
     danger of the rupture has passed, however, residents are 
     enduring the impacts of the pipeline's reconstruction and 
     potential realignment.
       Neither the public nor elected officials knew the extent of 
     the safety risks associated with the pipeline. Our 
     preliminary information indicates that the pipeline may have 
     failed safety inspections from 1995 on; however, this 
     information was not made public, nor made available to 
     elected officials or emergency personnel. This information is 
     very disturbing in light of the extreme risks involved with 
     the transportation of highly flammable materials.
       In the aftermath of the rupture, there have been reports of 
     groundwater contamination as a result of the pipeline rupture 
     and/or reconstruction efforts. Reports on the issue have 
     varied: some indicating a dangerous contamination, and some 
     not. In light of this discrepancy, and a great deal of 
     anxiety on the part of residents of Tucson, I request that 
     you immediately commence an independent assessment of the 
     situation in order to ensure that the citizens of Tucson and 
     southern Arizona are safe from any unnecessary risks of the 
     rupture itself and impending reconstruction.
       It is absolutely crucial that citizens of Southern Arizona 
     know the full extent of the danger and risks associated with 
     this rupture and reconstruction efforts. It is the EPA's 
     responsibility to ensure that our citizens are protected from 
     environmental contamination. Please inform my staff member, 
     Rachel Kondor, at (202) 225-2435, as to the steps you plan to 
     take with regard to this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Raul M. Grijalva,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Filner 
motion to instruct conferees.
  First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the House Energy Policy Act does not 
exempt oil and gas exploration and production sites from environmental 
regulation. Any claim that it does is simply untrue. Rather, the 
provision in the legislation clarifies under what conditions EPA should 
regulate these facilities. This provision simply clears up Congress's 
original intentions with regard to storm water permitting under the 
1987 Clean Water Act's amendments. It should be included in this 
conference report.
  Noncontaminated storm water from oil and gas exploration and 
production sites was specifically excluded from the new storm water 
permitting requirements for sites in 1987. However, EPA did not 
interpret the law that way. EPA decided to subject uncontaminated 
runoff from these sites to rules designated to regulate runoff from 
major construction sites, such as shopping centers and subdivisions.
  Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress, I was a land developer. I 
have moved a lot of dirt in my life. I have prepared a lot of sites to 
build homes for Americans; and there is a lot of difference between 
preparing a site for drilling and preparing a site for homes.
  Additionally, the cost of making these kinds of nonsense pollution 
requirements for sites that should not be under this regulation only 
adds to the cost of housing and it only adds to the cost of oil and gas 
exploration in our country, at a time where we are a net importer, Mr. 
Speaker, of substantial amount of our petroleum products.
  Oil and gas exploration production sites are not major construction 
sites and should not be permitted in the same manner. That was 
Congress's original intention, and we need to restore the intent in the 
conference report.
  While EPA has suspended permitting for these sites in order to 
reevaluate the regulations, we need this provision to clear up the 
issue and end the lawsuits and move forward once and for all.
  If there is contaminated runoff at these sites, it will be subject to 
EPA permitting. Oil and gas producers continue to manage storm water 
when they build on exploration sites in order to prevent contaminated 
runoff. Exploration sites need to be stabilized quickly in order for 
development equipment can be brought on to the sites quickly.
  Timing is crucial with these projects and unnecessary regulation 
slows and discourages new development of energy resources we need. 
Disruption of energy supply development is detrimental to a sound 
national energy policy. Oppose the Filner motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, this is needless regulation that we need to start 
curbing in our country, and I urge Members to be oppose the Filner 
motion to instruct.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the gentleman from Texas saying that we 
should not disturb the development of oil and gas, and surely we must 
find sources of energy in this Nation.
  What about alternative sources? And why does everyone other industry 
in America have to comply with this section of the Clean Water Act and 
not gas and oil if this motion does not pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on his important motion to instruct.
  My friends who are so concerned about the energy industry, I fear are 
giving us conflicting signals. On the one hand, we are told that we can 
open up areas to additional drilling and exploitation because it is so 
safe, because it can be done without environmental damage. They are 
willing to go into the pristine arctic wilderness area and subject it 
to drilling.
  Yet, we are told here that, no, we actually have to extend further 
protections, further exemptions from full compliance with our Nation's 
environmental laws. I find it a little ironic.
  It is sad that we are debating what may be in the energy bill because 
the irony is, of course, that the committee members who are on our side 
of the aisle have been excluded. They do not really know exactly what 
is in the conference committee report, let alone the public and the 
rest of America. But the fact is that we are very likely to be dealing 
with this exemption.
  I have heard references again that I find ironic to the committee of 
jurisdiction. The gentleman will remember that when the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) attempted in the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce to provide an amendment to deal with this specific subject, he 
was ruled out of order because the committee of jurisdiction happens to 
be our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but we have not 
been dealing with this. This is dropped in in this hidden conference 
process from which the Democrats have been excluded.

[[Page H10525]]

  When there was an effort to go to the Committee on Rules earlier to 
explicitly deal with this matter when the energy bill was coming 
forward, the Committee on Rules would not allow it.
  The gentleman from Texas refers dismissively to ``dirt'' as though it 
is not a pollutant. Well, I ask the gentleman to come to the Pacific 
Northwest and talk to sportspeople who will tell you that inappropriate 
regulation of dirt, of silt is a serious pollution problem. And that is 
why responsible contractors deal with it and, in fact, that is why we 
have had it under Federal statute and why it is being employed right 
here within sight of the Capitol. Dirt, silt is a serious problem.
  Now, this regulation has been under control since 1992. In fact, the 
EPA has been looking to extend it because this is serious business, not 
just the sites that are over five acres, but from one to five acres. 
Again we have been operating under this rule for 10 years.
  Now, I am sorry my colleague from Houston got away because I have the 
provisions here of Section 402, and it appears that it would not permit 
the administrator to do what he was saying, to clean up pollution after 
the fact.
  The point is we should not be cleaning up after the fact. There is no 
good reason to roll back this protection. There is no good reason for 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce to act outside their jurisdiction 
and deny the opportunity for the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to deal with it.
  Last, I find it ironic that this comes forward on a day when two more 
environmental rollbacks have been brought forward by this 
administration. There is a leak that they are going to cut back clean 
water jurisdiction over streams that do not have a ground water source, 
and today the administration announced that it would not be pursuing 
any of the pending new source review cases against utilities that went 
ahead with construction in violation of the new source review program.

                              {time}  1815

  This despite their repeated assurances when they were coming forward 
with the NSR rule change that they would not affect pending cases.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a part of a pattern of environmental rollback 
that we have seen with this administration that will not correlate its 
campaign rhetoric with what it does in office and where this Congress 
is complacent in stepping back from our requirement to protect the 
environment.
  I strongly, strongly urge that we approve the motion to instruct from 
the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson), a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to 
my good friend the gentleman from California's (Mr. Filner) motion to 
instruct conferees on the Energy Policy Act of 2003. This motion will 
instruct conferees to drop a critical provision of domestic oil and 
natural gas production which would negatively impact this very 
important industry in my home State of Oklahoma and throughout the 
country.
  The provision in the Energy Policy Act simply clarifies current 
confusion in the Clean Water Act that has led the Environmental 
Protection Agency to believe it should regulate storm water discharges 
resulting from the construction of exploration and production 
facilities under a different standard than operating facilities. This 
was never the intent of Congress.
  The Energy Policy Act would clarify that one permitting standard 
would apply to both construction and operation of exploration and 
production facilities. This provides for sound, consistent and cost-
effective regulations designed for the conditions associated with oil 
and natural gas facilities to be developed.
  I respectfully request that my colleagues join me in opposing the 
Filner motion to instruct. I appreciate the granting of the time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would tell the Rhodes scholar from Oklahoma that he needs some 
additional training in research. Staff that was here when the bill was 
written know the intent of Congress, and it is not as the gentleman 
described.
  Let me respond to several of the arguments from the other side. If 
the provisions stays in the energy bill, it is a rollback of existing 
requirements for construction over five acres. That is what exists now, 
and this rolls it back, no matter what they say that this intended 10 
years ago or whatever.
  Our original intent in 1987 was to exempt storm water that was 
totally unpolluted. Storm water that was totally unpolluted was 
exempted. Storm water from construction is polluted, as we have heard 
from the gentleman from Oregon, and the gentleman from Texas knows that 
when there is no possibility of runoff into the waters of the United 
States one does not need a permit. Where all the storm water is kept on 
site, go do it; they do not need the permit.
  So we are I think hearing justifications. We are hearing 
rationalizations of the destruction of our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, other industries do not have this exemption from the 
Clean Water Act. In fact, many other companies, including mom and pop 
businesses with far fewer resources than the oil and gas industry that 
the Republican party tries to protect, every one of those businesses 
must take steps to reduce polluted storm water runoff from their 
construction activities. So why not oil and gas companies? Could it be 
because they spend every election cycle millions of dollars on campaign 
contributions?
  These companies I think are getting a payback here in the form of 
special interest loopholes in the Clean Water Act that was stuck into 
the energy bill. In the last few years, they have given over $64 
million to Federal candidates and their parties. It is a great payback 
that we have here in the energy bill for those contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, environmental groups all across the Nation support this 
instruction: The Audubon Society, the American Rivers, the Center for 
International Environmental Law, Clean Ocean Action, Clean Water 
Action, Coastal Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, 
Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, the Gulf 
Restoration Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the National 
Environmental Trust, the National Resources Defense Council, the Save 
the Dunes Council, the Sierra Club, The Ocean Conservancy, The 
Wilderness Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the U.S. 
Public Interest Research Group. The National League of Cities supports 
my instruction, and not only these environmental groups support the 
motion but hunting and fishing groups in America do, Trout Unlimited, 
the Izaak Walton League and the National Wildlife Federation.
  It is clear that an exemption is being carved out to allow one 
business, one sector of our economy, one extremely powerful sector of 
our economy to buy its way out of the Clean Water Act. I think that is 
a terrible terrible thing to say to our Nation, that if one gives the 
campaign contributions they get exempted from the environmental 
protection that is required of everyone else.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge us to adopt this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire of the gentleman, who is the 
author of the amendment, if he has any other speakers?
  Mr. FILNER. I have someone to counter whatever the gentleman says.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. The reason I ask is, the gentleman has the right 
to close. So after I speak is the gentleman going to give the closing 
statement? Is that the gentleman's intention at this point in time?
  Mr. FILNER. Yes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Okay. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I still 
have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and at the end of my statement I am going to ask my good 
friend from Abilene to answer a few questions since

[[Page H10526]]

I know he has got a number of these drilling sites in his District.
  I want to start out by saying we have no opposition if a State or a 
local government, for whatever reason, wishes to put some regulations 
in place to prevent siltation into their waterways, but the Clean Water 
Act is explicit that we do not regulate drilling sites, oil and gas 
drilling sites, under the Clean Water Act. It is explicit in the Act. 
What EPA has tried to do is say, that is true, but we should be able to 
regulate the site construction, the site preparation of these drilling 
sites.
  Now, use a little common sense. What is the worst thing that is going 
to happen while one is preparing a site to be used as a drilling site 
for oil and gas exploration? It might rain. It might rain. I do not 
know how long it takes to prepare a drilling site. My good friend from 
Abilene may know. It may take a week. It may take 2 weeks. It may take 
a couple of days, but if it takes 6 months to get the permit to prepare 
the site, and a person has to spend $10- or $15,000 to get the permit 
and then to put up the berms and all that stuff and it does not rain, 
they have done a lot of work for nothing, and maybe if one is a small, 
independent drilling operator like there are a lot of in my District, 
trying to operate out of the old Corsicana field or Mexia field, they 
may say to heck with it, I am not going to even try.
  The average well in Texas produces less than 10 barrels of oil a day 
right now. How many little guys do we want to make it so impossible to 
do anything to extend the life of our existing fields on the off chance 
that while they are preparing the site to drill it might rain? The 
Clean Water Act does not regulate dirt as a pollutant. It is not a 
regulated pollutant.
  So all that we are saying in the bill that has already passed the 
House is the law already is explicit that the EPA cannot regulate an 
active drilling site. We say they cannot go in and in a back door way 
try to regulate the site preparation, and again, we are talking about 
storm water, rainwater, runoff which if one is preparing a drilling 
site, the worst that is going to happen is it might rain and they might 
get a little mud. That is the worst that is going to happen.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said, if I heard him right, 
that he might be going over previously active fields, right, 
construction that were, am I to understand, active fields?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. In my District, we are going into old fields and 
trying to extend the life of those fields, and on occasion, believe it 
or not, they do scrape up $10- or $15-, $50,000, get a lease, go out 
and actually try to drill a new well. It does happen, not as often as 
it should, in my opinion, but it does happen.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
would there not be the possibility in active sites or previously at the 
sites benzene, toluene, other heavy metals? There would not be just 
dirt there?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If one goes to drill in an existing site, under 
State regulation, in my case the State of Texas, requires site 
remediation, site monitoring, and again, we are talking about storm 
water runoff. If there is contamination, we do not change that. We do 
not change that at all.
  All we are simply saying is heaven help the poor guy or girl in our 
society that wants to go out and try to find some more oil and gas and 
they actually put up their own money, go to the bank, borrow it, 
whatever. Let us do not require them to get a waste water runoff permit 
from the Federal EPA that explicitly says in the current law one does 
not have to have once the site is active.
  I want to ask my good friend from Abilene a few questions if he would 
care to engage me in a colloquy or dialogue. I would assume that the 
gentleman has some oil and gas production in his District in West 
Texas. Is that correct?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Has the gentleman ever been in a conversation 
with an oil and gas producer at some cafe or maybe a church or at a 
social and they actually talked about maybe going out and trying to 
drill a few new wells?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have done better than that. I have had 
them drill on my own property. They drilled 11 dry holes which I have 
had discussions with them as to why they could not do a better job of 
finding oil under my property than just drilling dry holes.
  But from the standpoint of the basic in the gentleman's exchange with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), we used to have a very bad 
situation in Texas, and I can show my colleagues land in my community 
that was literally destroyed by the oil and gas industry because of 
their inability and unwillingness to protect it. That was 50 years ago.
  Today, when the last well that was drilled on my property, again a 
dry hole, one cannot tell they were there today. They do an excellent 
job because that is the rules and regulations that Texas imposes upon 
the oil and gas industry, and I believe that is basically true all over 
the United States today.
  The question before us, though, it is not just oil and gas producers 
that are opposed to these proposed storm water regulations being 
imposed unilaterally across the board on every possible site. It is 
also my small towns and communities have got real problems with this, 
home developers, et cetera, because in dry West Texas, we can impose 
some of these regulations based on the possibility of rain and spend 
more money than one can possibly get out of the investment that they 
are going in. So it would have a very damaging effect on economic 
development.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Texas, on 
the dry holes drilled on the gentleman's property, how long did it take 
them to prepare the site for drilling?
  Mr. STENHOLM. A couple of days. They would go in and dig the slush 
pit. The next thing, the drill rigs are there.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. When they are doing this site preparation, they 
prepare the pits, they have State and Federal regulations they have to 
comply with in terms of the drilling muds and the fluids that go down 
in the well and come up with the well; is that correct?
  Mr. STENHOLM. And they have to dig a pit that will hold that which 
they are going to use on that particular site.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. So if there is anything that is going to be 
contaminated, they are preparing for those types of fluids?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Under current law, that is correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. But they are not actually using any of those 
fluids in the site preparation? They are not doing a test run where 
they put those kinds of fluids in?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Not until they drill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If we were to agree to the Filner motion to pull 
something out of the pending energy bill that has already passed the 
House so EPA could regulate the site preparation for storm water, rain 
water runoff, then, obviously, additional site preparation would be 
required, additional berms, plastic fences, and those types of things; 
is that correct?
  Mr. STENHOLM. That is most certainly the fear, and it is not just a 
fear, it is a reality if we impose these regulations all across the 
United States, as someone might in a certain area in which we have a 
different rainfall characteristic.
  The annual rainfall in my district ranges from 14 inches in the west 
to 35 inches in the eastern part of my district, the part that adjoins 
the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Therefore, there 
are different components. But the law gets interpreted and put into 
place and enforced in ways that assume that a drilling rig in west 
Texas is going to suddenly be faced with a 20-inch rain.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for 
engaging in this dialogue, and it is obviously not prepared. Let me 
continue to yield and ask a final question.
  Does the gentleman know anybody in west Texas, in his district, that 
thinks that dirt that gets wet is a pollutant? Wet dirt caused by rain 
raining on the

[[Page H10527]]

drilling site, is there anybody in west Texas that thinks that is a 
pollutant, wet dirt because of rain?
  Mr. STENHOLM. In the case of a flood, wet dirt that goes into a home 
is a pollutant.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. When was the last flood in Abilene?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Two years ago, but I take the gentleman's point.
  Ironically, we are facing the same question in some regions of this 
country where dirt is considered a pollutant, and we are attempting to 
regulate plows. I remember 3 years ago, I believe, in Arizona, we were 
attempting to regulate dust storms. That is difficult to do, the same 
way the gentleman is talking about regulating when is it going to rain 
and how much is it going to rain. From the standpoint of a normal 
operation in my district, again, on my own farm, the site is prepared. 
It would be unconscionable to require a permit, going over 6-8 months, 
or order to find an opportunity there based on storm water. It is done 
based on other conditions, and that is already current law.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We have 
shown in this debate that there is bipartisan opposition to the Filner 
motion. It is not because we do not like the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner). He is a great guy. It is not because he is from 
California, the Golden State, it is simply because his motion, to those 
of us who oppose it, just defies common sense.
  The law is clear if we have an active drilling site, it is explicitly 
exempt in the statute from regulation for waste water runoff. There is 
no reason in the world to take the plain language of an active drilling 
site and say you should have to regulate, at the Federal level, the 
site preparation for rain water runoff. That is why we clarified and 
added this simple section that says what they say for the site itself 
when it is active should also be applicable to site preparation. I ask 
for a no vote on the Filner motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman from Abilene, Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) did such a good job for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
that they should have treated him better in the Texas redistricting 
law.
  We have been told we ought to cry for some of these gas and oil 
producers and developers, and that these poor folks, we have to let 
them produce. I am told that the permit that would be needed for such a 
situation only takes 7 days. That is the law. I do not know what 
Members are talking about--6 months, or we will never be allowed to 
prepare the site. It is 7 days for the permit.
  In an arid area such as the gentleman's, the law specifically waives 
the requirement for a permit. If there is no corrosive rain, there is 
no permit required. I would be tempted to say the gentleman is throwing 
red herrings across the debate, but with the gentleman's policies, the 
red herrings might all be killed so I will not.
  Let me get to dirt.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, let me say the concern I have, when the 
regulations are read and the experiences we have had, we have had some 
extremely damaging experiences with the Endangered Species Act. What 
the gentleman says--7-day permit, that is correct; but someone comes in 
and sues at the exact moment, and then we get into the litigation and 
all of the questions based on it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's concerns. In 
California we have the same ones. Litigation is not the route that we 
wouldfavor. We would like a commonsense, as the gentleman from Texas 
kept saying, a commonsense law.
  But dirt, siltation, is in fact the second leading polluting problem 
in our Nation's rivers and streams. It suffocates fish and eggs and 
bottom-dwelling organisms. It alters aquatic habitat, and interferes 
with drinking water and the recreational process of the river. So 
siltation is a real problem.
  In conclusion, our country needs energy. We support its development, 
but clean water is as important as energy. It is vital for our economy 
and for our life itself. And the lands where the wells are drilled are 
the same lands that provide water for our ranchers and our city 
dwellers, as well as our fish and wildlife population.
  The oil and gas industry say, and I have seen TV advertisements and 
full-page ads in magazines, that we can develop energy and protect the 
environment at the same time, and we agree with them. So why should 
Congress weaken environmental protection by writing a special exemption 
for one industry alone? I ask for approval of the motion to instruct.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion, 
and I commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner, for offering 
this motion to prevent an egregious assault on the Clean Water Act, 
Section 12403 of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, amends the 
Clean Water Act to provide a permanent exemption from stormwater 
permitting requirements for construction activities associated with oil 
and gas exploration and production operations.
  If this provision remains in the energy conference report, oil and 
gas exploration would be the only construction activity not subject to 
Clean Water Act requirements. Oil and gas operations would be under no 
obligation to control stormwater runoff that would impair our Nation's 
lakes, rivers, and streams. It is a complete, unprecedented end-run 
around one of our Nation's most successful environmental laws and 
should be stricken from the conference report.
  Since its enactment 31 years ago, the Clean Water Act has prevented 
billions of pounds of pollution from fouling our Nation's waters, and 
we have doubled the number of healthy rivers, lakes, and streams across 
America. Instead of celebrating these considerable accomplishments, 
this Congress, following the direction of the Bush Administration, 
seeks to abandon them. This provision allowing the oil and gas industry 
a permanent exemption from complying with Clean Water Act requirements 
is the latest step down that road.
  If left unchecked, stormwater carries pollutants from construction 
sites to nearby waterways, endangering human health, harming wildlife, 
and rendering these waterways unsuitable for recreational uses such as 
swimming or fishing. We cannot allow the oil and gas industry to 
operate without regard to the amount of pollution running into our 
Nation's waterways from its construction activities, thereby reversing 
decades of effort at reducing polluted stormwater.
  Since 1990, construction sites, including oil and gas construction 
sites, larger than five acres have been required to control stormwater 
pollution. In December 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a rule, to be effective in March of this year, that requires 
smaller construction sites, those between one and five acres in size, 
to control stormwater runoff. However, in response to heavy oil and gas 
industry pressure, EPA granted the industry a special two-year 
exemption from this rule. EPA decided that it needed two more years to 
study the impacts of enforcing this rule on the oil and gas industry, 
while ignoring the impacts of industry pollution on water quality.
  This two-year delay is nothing more than a special favor to the oil 
and gas industry--remember it has been nearly four years since EPA 
first published the rule. The provision currently at issue takes the 
favoritism to the extreme by providing the oil and gas industry a 
permanent exemption from controlling stormwater runoff--regardless of 
the size of the construction site.
  The oil and gas industry exemption is not only wrong on substance, 
but it is also wrong on process. Since consideration of this bill began 
early last spring, the Republican majority has blocked repeated 
attempts by Democrats to be heard on this provision. During the Energy 
and Commerce Committee's consideration of the House Energy Bill 
Committee Print in April, Congressman Markey offered an amendment to 
strike the offending provision. Chairman Tauzin ruled the Markey 
amendment out of order, stating that it was non-germane because the 
issue was not within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and was ``within the jurisdiction completely'' of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Despite my serious concern 
with this Clean Water Act exemption, the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee never considered the bill.
  When the House considered the bill, Congressmen Costello, Markey, and 
I sought to offer an amendment to H.R. 6 to strike the provision. But 
the Rules Committee blocked our efforts to offer that amendment on the 
House Floor. As a result, today, seven months since the Energy and 
Commerce Committee considered the bill, is the first time Democrats 
have the opportunity to debate and vote on this Clean Water Act 
exemption for the oil and gas industry.

[[Page H10528]]

  This provision exempting oil and gas companies from complying with 
the stormwater permitting requirements rolls back the clock on 
environmental protections and seriously jeopardizes the health of our 
Nations lakes, rivers, and streams.
  I urge members to adopt this motion and instruct the Energy bill 
conferees to reject this provision.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________